Treaties concerning dual nationality
Problems arising from conflicts in nationality laws
By William Wetherall
First posted 15 September 2007
Last updated 12 March 2018
League of Nations
Background of conflict of nationality laws convention and dual nationality protocol
1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws
1930 Hague Protocol on Military Obligations in Cases of Double Nationality
League of Nations
Background of conflict of nationality laws convention and dual nationality protocol
The League of Nations was the forerunner of the present United Nations. It was established on 10 January 1920 as a consequence of the Paris Peace Conference, which began on 18 January 1919 to settle issues created by World War now called World War I. The Peace Conference resulted in several treaties, beginning with the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919 involving Germany, and finally the Treaty of Sèvres on 10 August 1920, and the Treaty of Lausanne on 24 July 1923, which revised the Treaty of Sèvres, concerning the Ottoman Empire, which became the Republic of Turkey.
Despite its promise as a peace-keeping, war-prevention body, the League of Nations proved unable to deal with the conflicts that continued to arise between its member states. Japan itself became a protagonist in the organization's problems in several ways.
Perhaps the most important problem arose from the very beginning, when a few other states, perhaps most importantly the United States, opposed Japan's call for the inclusion of a racial-equality clause in the the league's Covenant. Later, Japan drew fire from other members when it violated the terms of its mandate over the South Sea Islands, which it had captured from Germany during the war. Japan had wanted to annex the islands, but the other major powers would agree only to a mandate arrangement, under which Japan was obliged to develop the islands for peaceful purposes. Japan, however, colonized the islands and built military bases on some of them.
The most fateful conflict arose after Japan's military actions in Manchuria in 1931. Most other members considered Manchuria to be part of China, and they refused to recognize Japan's claim that its seizure of the territory in 1931, and its role in creating the state of Manchoukuo in 1932, were legitimate acts of self-defense undertaken for the sake of stabilizing the region. In 1933, refusing to be censured, Japan formally withdrew from the League of Nations. It continued to administer its South Sea Islands territory under the league's mandate, however, and continued to maintain normal international relationships with other states, including those that had censured its Manchurian actions.
But Japan was not the only state to derail the League of Nations. The organization continued to fail to stem increasing aggressions in Europe and elsewhere in the world, including Japan's incursions in China from 1937. By the end of 1939, the international body had slipped into a coma. Unable to function during World War II, it was formally disbanded in 1946 when the United Nations was formed as its successor. The UN Charter included the sort of anti-racial discrimination clauses Japan had attempted to put in its predecessor's Covenant.
Nationality issues
Toward the end of preventing wars between nations, the League of Nations began to concern itself with a host of issues that caused friction between nations, as well as international issues that had adverse affects on individuals. Among the legal issues was how states treated individuals according to their nationality -- the legal status an individual acquired as a member of a state's national population or nation.
The overarching nationality issues were statelessness or lack of nationality, and multiple nationality or having more than one nationality. Difficulties arose for states and individuals alike when an individual had no nationality, and individuals who had more than one nationality posed difficulties for states.
Here I will deal only with the issue of conflicts that arise from multiple nationality. For treaties addressing statelessness, see Treaties concerning statelessness: The growth pains of the "right to a nationality" movement on this website.
1930 Hague Convention on Double Nationality
The League of Nations Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws is more popularly known as the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality.
As the fuller name implies, the treaty is about "conflict of nationality laws" -- meaning problems that arise because of multiple nationality or lack of nationality. While the preamble calls for the "abolition of all cases both of statelessness and of double nationality", the articles of the treaty are entirely concerned with dual nationality.
Japan signed the the 1930 nationality convention with reservations (see below) but did not ratify it. The treaty is still in force, and a few states have become participants since the United Nations assumed depositary (depository) functions.
The United States of America did not sign the treaty. Canada signed it but did not ratify it. Then, after the United Nations took over depositary functions, Canada denounced the treaty.
Japan's reservations
Japan signed the convention "Subject to reservation as regards Articles 4 and 10 and as regards the words 'according to its law' of Article 13" (see treaty below).
Article 4 reads "A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses." Therefore, Japan felt that it should be able to protect any national, anywhere in the world, even in another country in which the national was also a national.
Article 10 reads "Naturalisation of the husband during marriage shall not involve a change in the nationality of the wife except with her consent." Japan probably objected to this because its family laws stressed the unity of spousal identity -- in other words, a man and a wife should be of the same legal status -- either both Japanese, or both foreigners. At the time, the "corporate family" (家 ie), not the individual, was the unit of family law. Today the unit is the individual, but Japanese spouses still have to be recorded in the same principal register and share the same family name, and formal register status relationships continue to be the basis for default inheritance laws. Some provisions in statutes, as well as concepts in customary law, also impose certain responsibilities on "families" for the actions and conditions of adult members within a certain degree of relationship -- thus their adult members, which limits the definition of an adult member's competence and culpability as an individual.
Article 13 provided in part that "Naturalisation of the parents shall confer on such of their children as, according to its law, are minors the nationality of the State by which the naturalisation is granted. Japan's 1899 Nationality Law, however, read "The child of a person who acquires Japanese nationality acquires Japanese nationality in conjunction with its father or its mother, if it is a minor according to the law of its own country" (Article 16).
Related protocols
A number of related protocols were signed by interested states on the same day. Japan did sign the protocol concerning the military obligations of dual nationals (see below). It signed but did not ratify only one of the two protocols on statelessness (see Statelessness treaties).
|
1930 Hague Convention on Double Nationality "Every person should have a nationality and one nationality only" "The ideal is the abolition of statelessness and double nationality" |
|
SourcesThe following text is a reformatted version of the text retrieved from the Refworld database on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Dates of participation, reservations, and some other details concerning party states have been omitted. The Japanese title is based on the following source. 岡村美保子 Okamura Mihoko Signing and enforcementThe convention was signed on 12 April 1930. The convention entered into force on 1 July 1937 (Articles 26 and 27). Status of signatory statesThe following information concerning the status of signatory states is as of 30 June 1999. Actions between 1931 and 1937
|
|
Ratifications, accessions, and signatures not perfected Many states signed the convention with reservations. Japan's plenipotentiary made its reservations in French (see signatures of party states at end of convention). Practically all of the few states the eventually ratified or acceded to the convention attached reservations. Japan never did ratify the convention. Its reservations, in English, were as follows. Subject to reservation as regards Articles 4 and 10 and as regards the words "according to its law" of Article 13. |
Actions between 1953 and 1998
after the assumption of depositary functions by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Denunciation
Canada
Ratification, accession, or succession
Cyprus, Fiji, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malta, Mauritius, Pakistan, Swaziland, Zimbabwe
Commentary
Boxed comments and highlighting in the main text of the convention are mine.
CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO
THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930
国籍法の抵触に関連するある種の問題に関する条約
THE PRESIDENT OF THE GERMAN REICH;
THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS;
EMPEROR OF INDIA;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF DENMARK AND ICELAND;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC, FOR THE FREE CITY OF DANZIG;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF EGYPT;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN;
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ESTONIAN REPUBLIC;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC;
HIS SERENE HIGHNESS THE RECENT OF THE KINGDOM OF HUNGARY;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF DENMARK AND ICELAND, FOR ICELAND;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY;
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LATVIAN REPUBLIC;
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND-DUCHESS OF LUXEMBURG;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO;
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PERU;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SALVADOR;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SWEDEN; THE SWISS FEDERAL COUNCIL;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF YUGOSLAVIA,
CONSIDERING that it is of importance to settle by international agreement questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws;
BEING CONVINCED that it is in the general interest of the international community to secure that all its members should recognise that every person should have a nationality and should have one nationality only;
RECOGNISING accordingly that the ideal towards which the efforts of humanity should be directed in this domain is the abolition of all cases both of statelessness and of double nationality;
BEING OF OPINION that, under the economic and social conditions which at present exist in the various countries, it is not possible to reach immediately a uniform solution of all the abovementioned problems;
BEING DESIROUS, nevertheless, as a first step toward this great achievement, of settling in a first attempt at progressive codification, those questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws on which it is possible at the present time to reach international agreement,
HAVE DECIDED to conclude a Convention and have for this purpose appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:
[ Names of other plenipotentiaries omitted. ]
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:
Viscount Kintomo MUSHAKOJI, Envoy Extraordinary and Minster Plenipotentiary accredited to His Majesty the King of Sweden.
[ Names of other plenipotentiaries omitted. ]
WHO, having deposited their full powers found in good and due form,
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.
Article 2
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.
Article 3
Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, a person having two or more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose nationality he possesses.
Article 4
A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses.
Japan placed reservations on this article.
Article 5
Within a third State, a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status and of any conventions in force, a third State shall, of the nationalities which any such person possesses, recognise exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident, or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected.
Article 6
Without prejudice to the liberty of a State to accord wider rights to renounce its nationality, a person possessing two nationalities acquired without any voluntary act on his part may renounce one of them with the authorisation of the State whose nationality he desires to surrender.
This authorisation may not be refused in the case of a person who has his habitual and principal residence abroad, if the conditions laid down in the law of the State whose nationality he desires to surrender are satisfied.
CHAPTER II
EXPATRIATION PERMITS
Article 7
In so far as the law of a State provides for the issue of an expatriation permit, such a permit shall not entail the loss of the nationality of the State which issues it, unless the person to whom it is issued possesses another nationality or unless and until he acquires another nationality.
An expatriation permit shall lapse if the holder does not acquire a new nationality within the period fixed by the State which has issued the permit. This provision shall not apply in the case of an individual who, at the time when he receives the expatriation permit, already possesses a nationality other than that of the State by which the permit is issued to him.
The State whose nationality is acquired by a person to whom an expatriation permit has been issued, shall notify such acquisition to the State which has issued the permit.
CHAPTER III
NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
Article 8
If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality on marriage with a foreigner, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring the nationality of the husband.
Article 9
If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality upon a change in the nationality of her husband occurring during marriage, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring her husband's new nationality.
Article 10
Naturalisation of the husband during marriage shall not involve a change in the nationality of the wife except with her consent.
Japan placed reservations on this article.
Article 11
The wife who, under the law of her country, lost her nationality on marriage shall not recover it after the dissolution of the marriage except on her own application and in accordance with the law of that country. If she does recover it, she shall lose the nationality which she acquired by reason of the marriage.
CHAPTER IV
NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN
Article 12
Rules of law which confer nationality by reason of birth on the territory of a State shall not apply automatically to children born to persons enjoying diplomatic immunities in the country where the birth occurs.
The law of each State shall permit children of consuls de carriere, or of officials of foreign States charged with official missions by their Governments, to become divested, by repudiation or otherwise, of the nationality of the State in which they were born, in any case in which on birth they acquired dual nationality, provided that they retain the nationality of their parents.
Article 13
Naturalisation of the parents shall confer on such of their children as, according to its law, are minors the nationality of the State by which the naturalisation is granted. In such case the law of that State may specify the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality by the minor children as a result of the naturalisation of the parents. In cases where minor children do not acquire the nationality of their parents as the result of the naturalisation of the latter, they shall retain their existing nationality.
Japan placed reservations on the phrase "according to its law".
Article 14
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found.
Article 15
Where the nationality of a State is not acquired automatically by reason of birth on its territory, a child born on the territory of that State of parents having no nationality, or of unknown nationality, may obtain the nationality of the said State. The law of that State shall determine the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality in such cases.
Article 16
If the law of the State, whose nationality an illegitimate child possesses, recognises that such nationality may be lost as a consequence of a change in the civil status of the child (legitimation, recognition), such loss shall be conditional on the acquisition by the child of the nationality of another State under the law of such State relating to the effect upon nationality of changes in civil status.
CHAPTER V
ADOPTION
Article 17
If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.
CHAPTER VI
GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 18
The High Contracting Parties agree to apply the principles and rules contained in the preceding Articles in their relations with each other, as from the date of the entry into force of the present Convention.
The inclusion of the abovementioned principles and rules in the Convention shall in no way be deemed to prejudice the question whether they do or do not already form part of international law.
It is understood that, in so far as any point is not covered by any of the provisions of the preceding Articles, the existing principles and rules of international law shall remain in force.
Article 19
Nothing in the present Convention shall affect the provisions of any treaty, convention or agreement in force between any of the High Contracting Parties relating to nationality or matters connected therewith.
Article 20
Any High Contracting Party may, when signing or ratifying the present Convention or acceding thereto, append an express reservation excluding any one or more of the provisions of Articles 1 to 17 and 21.
The provisions thus excluded cannot be applied against the Contracting Party who has made the reservation nor relied on by that Party against any other Contracting Party.
Article 21
If there should arise between the High Contracting Parties a dispute of any kind relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention and if such dispute cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, it shall be settled in accordance with any applicable agreements in force between the parties providing for the settlement of international disputes.
In case there is no such agreement in force between the parties, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration or judicial settlement, in accordance with the constitutional procedure of each of the parties to the dispute. In the absence of agreement on the choice of another tribunal, the dispute shall be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, if all the parties to the dispute are parties to the Protocol of 16 December 1920 relating to the Statute of that Court, and if any of the parties to the dispute is not a party to the Protocol of 16 December 1920, the dispute shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts.
Article 22
The present Convention shall remain open until 31 December 1930 for signature on behalf of any Member of the League of Nations or of any non-Member State invited to the First Codification Conference or to which the Council of the League of Nations has communicated a copy of the Convention for this purpose.
Article 23
The present Convention is subject to ratification. Ratifications shall be deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations.
The Secretary-General shall give notice of the deposit of each ratification to the Members of the League of Nations and to the non-Member States mentioned in Article 22, indicating the date of its deposit.
Article 24
As from 1 January 1931, any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Member State mentioned in Article 22 on whose behalf the Convention has not been signed before that date, may accede thereto.
Accession shall be effected by an instrument deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall give notice of each accession to the Members of the League of Nations and to the non-Member States mentioned in Article 22, indicating the date of the deposit of the instrument.
Article 25
A proces-verbal shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations as soon as ratifications or accessions on behalf of ten Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States have been deposited.
A certified copy of this proces-verbal shall be sent by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to each Member of the League of Nations and to each non-Member State mentioned in Article 22.
Article 26
The present Convention shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of the proces-verbal mentioned in Article 25 as regards all Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States on whose behalf ratifications or accessions have been deposited on the date of the proces-verbal.
As regards any Member of the League or non-Member State on whose behalf a ratification or accession is subsequently deposited, the Convention shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of the deposit of a ratification or accession on its behalf.
Article 27
As from 1 January 1936, any Member of the League of Nations or any non-Member State in regard to which the present Convention is then in force, may address to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations a request for the revision of any or all of the provisions of this Convention. If such a request, after being communicated to the other Members of the League and non-Member States in regard to which the Convention is then in force, is supported within one year by at least nine of them, the Council of the League of Nations shall decide, after consultation with the Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 22, whether a conference should be specially convoked for that purpose or whether such revision should be considered at the next conference for the codification of international law.
The High Contracting Parties agree that, if the present Convention is revised, the revised Convention may provide that upon its entry into force some or all of the provisions of the present Convention shall be abrogated in respect of all of the Parties to the present Convention.
Article 28
The present Convention may be denounced.
Denunciation shall be effected by a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall inform all Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 22.
Each denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt by the Secretary-General of the notification but only as regards the Member of the League or non-Member State on whose behalf it has been notified.
Article 29
1. Any High Contracting Party may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that, in accepting the present Convention, he does not assume any obligations in respect of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of the said territories; and the present Convention shall not apply to any territories or to the parts of their population named in such declaration.
2. Any High Contracting Party may give notice to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations at any time subsequently that he desires that the Convention shall apply to all or any of his territories or to the parts of their population which have been made the subject of a declaration under the preceding paragraph, and the Convention shall apply to all the territories or the parts of their population named in such notice six months after its receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
3. Any High Contracting Party may, at any time, declare that he desires that the present Convention shall cease to apply to all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of the said territories, and the Convention shall cease to apply to the territories or to the parts of their population named in such declaration one year after its receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
4. Any High Contracting Party may make the reservations provided for in Article 20 in respect of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of these territories, at the time of signature, ratification or accession to the Convention or at the time of making a notification under the second paragraph of this Article.
5. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall communicate to all the Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 22 all declarations and notices received in virtue of this Article.
Article 30
The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations as soon as it has entered into force.
Article 31
The French and English texts of the present Convention shall both be authoritative.
IN FAITH WHEREOF the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention.
DONE at The Hague on the twelfth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations and of which certified true copies shall be transmitted by the Secretary-General to all the Members of the League of Nations and all the non-Member States invited to the First Conference for the Codification of International Law.
[ Signatures of other states omitted. ]
Japan:
Sous reserve des article 4.10 et des mots ≪d'après la loi de l'Etat qui accorde la naturalisation≫ de l'article 13.
Mushakoji
[ Signatures of other states omitted. ]
1930 Hague Protocol on Military Obligations in Cases of Double Nationality
The United States of America both signed and ratified this protocol. Japan did neither.
Dual nationals in Japanese Army
During World War II, Japan imposed military obligations on Japanese in Japan who were also nationals of the United States -- mostly "nisei" or "second generation" Japanese Americans, born in the United States to Japanese immigrants.
Most of these dual nationals were raised to their teens in the United States then sent to Japan for middle school and/or high school, and sometimes college. Most intended to return to the United States, but some settled in Japan. Some Japanese Americans were just visiting relatives when the war began.
Japan drafted a number of residents it viewed as Japanese, who also happened to be Americans, into its Imperial Army. I am not aware that any effort was made to differentiate between those who might actually have been domiciled in Japan, and those who were really domiciled in the United States.
Of course, Japan was under no legal obligation to make such a distinction, for it hadn't signed and ratified the protocol on military obligations of dual nationals. Even had it been bound by this treaty, Japan would have been free to define its own standards for determining domicile.
In any event, being a Japanese national -- a member of a Japanese family register -- was all that mattered when it came to military conscription in Japan. Still, because Japan was at war with the United States, Japanese who had been born and raised in America were closely watched as quasi-enemy aliens.
Loss of US citizenship
Americans of Japanese ancestry who were in Japan during the war, and who served in the Japanese military, or who voted in early postwar elections, lost their US citizenship. Some were able to regain it through special measures that took into account their circumstances.
Dual nationals in American military
The United States, after interning West Coast Japanese and Japanese Americans as enemy aliens, recruited Japanese Americans willing to swear their loyalty to the United States and disavow any loyalty toward Japan. Many such Americans, even if they had never been to Japan, were potentially dual nationals because their parents had retained their Japanese nationality by registering their birth at a Japanese consulate.
What came to be called the "loyalty questions" were part of a general 30-item questionnaire completed by internees.
27. Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty wherever ordered?
28. Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese Emperor, or to any other foreign government, power or organization?
Those who answered yes-yes were recruitable. Those who answered no-no found themselves segregated in their own camps and watched as potential troublemakers.
No-No Boy
John Okada (1923-1971), author of No-No Boy, was not himself a no-no boy, though his novel captures the divisive impact of the loyalty questions on individuals and families in the internment camps. During World War II, Okada was an officer in the Military Intelligence Service in the Pacific.
Okada's now classic novel, first published in 1957 by Charles Tuttle in Tokyo, was suppressed by the Japanese American Citizens League. It does not name JACL, but harshly criticizes this organization because it put loyalty to the United States ahead of civil rights.
No-No Boy was not resurrected until 1976, after Okada's death, by the Combined Asian American Research Project (CARP) at the University of Washington in Seattle. Some true no-no boy "resisters" have panned it because they feel Okada did not really know what no-no boys went through. While the story may be compelling, parts of the narrative are not credible.
Kibei
Kibei, who had been to Japan and returned to America with various levels of fluency and literacy in Japanese, were in special demand as analysts and interrogators in intelligence and combat units in the Pacific Theater. Many also served as translators and interpreters during the Allied Occupation of Japan.
|
1930 Protocol Relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality Exempt in less-connected countries but may lose their nationalities |
SourcesThe following text is a reformated version of the text retrieved from the Refworld database on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Dates of participation, reservations, and some other details concerning party states have been omitted. The Japanese title is based on わが国が未批准の国際条約一覧 (2003年7月現在) [Wagakuni ga mihijun no kokusai jōyaku ichiran (2003 nen 7 gatsu genzai)] [List of international treaties not ratified by our country (As of July 2003)] posted by the National Diet Library. Signing and enforcementThe protocol was signed on 12 April 1930. The protocol entered into force on 25 May 1937 (Articles 11 and 12). Status of signatory statesThe following information concerning the status of signatory states is as of 30 June 1999. Actions between 1931 and 1939
|
|
PROTOCOL RELATING TO MILITARY OBLIGATIONS 二重国籍のある場合における軍事的義務に関する議定書 THE UNDERSIGNED PLENIPOTENTIARIES, on behalf of their respective Governments, With a view to determining in certain cases the position as regards their military obligations of persons possessing two or more nationalities, HAVE AGREED as follows: |
|
Article 1 A person possessing two or more nationalities who habitually resides in one of the countries whose nationality he possesses, and who is in fact most closely connected with that country, shall be exempt from all military obligations in the other country or countries. This exemption may involve the loss of the nationality of the other country or countries. |
|
Article 2 Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1 of the present Protocol, if a person possesses the nationality of two or more States and, under the law of any one of such States, has the right, on attaining his majority, to renounce or decline the nationality of that State, he shall be exempt from military service in such State during his minority. |
|
Article 3 A person who has lost the nationality of a State under the law of that State and has acquired another nationality, shall be exempt from military obligations in the State of which he has lost the nationality. |
|
Article 4 The High Contracting Parties agree to apply the principles and rules contained in the preceding Articles in their relations with each other, as from the date of the entry into force of the present Protocol. The inclusion of the above mentioned principles and rules in the said Articles shall in no way be deemed to prejudice the question whether they do or do not already form part of international law. It is understood that, in so far as any point is not covered by any of the provisions of the preceding Articles, the existing principles and rules of international law shall remain in force. |
|
Article 5 Nothing in the present Protocol shall affect the provisions of any treaty, convention or agreement in force between any of the High Contracting Parties relating to nationality or matters connected therewith. |
|
Article 6 Any High Contracting Party may, when signing or ratifying the present Protocol or acceding thereto, append an express reservation excluding any one or more of the provisions of Articles 1 to 3 and 7. The provisions thus excluded cannot be applied against the High Contracting Party who has made the reservation nor relied on by that Party against any other High Contracting Party. |
|
Article 7 If there should arise between the High Contracting Parties a dispute of any kind relating to the interpretation or application of the present Protocol and if such dispute cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, it shall be settled in accordance with any applicable agreements in force between the Parties providing for the settlement of international disputes. In case there is no such agreement in force between the Parties, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration or judicial settlement, in accordance with the constitutional procedure of each of the Parties to the dispute. In the absence of agreement on the choice of another tribunal, the dispute shall be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, if all the Parties to the dispute are Parties to the Protocol of 16 December 1920, relating to the Statute of that Court, and if any of the Parties to the dispute is not a Party to the Protocol of 16 December 1920, the dispute shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, for the Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts. |
|
Article 8 The present Protocol shall remain open until 31 December 1930 for signature on behalf of any Member of the League of Nations or of any non-Member State invited to the First Codification Conference or to which the Council of the League of Nations has communicated a copy of the Protocol for this purpose. |
|
Article 9 The present Protocol is subject to ratification. Ratifications shall be deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General shall give notice of the deposit of each ratification to the Members of the League of Nations and to the non-Member States mentioned in Article 8, indicating the date of its deposit. |
|
Article 10 As from 1 January 1931, any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Member State mentioned in Article 8 on whose behalf the Protocol has not been signed before that date may accede thereto. Accession shall be effected by an instrument deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall give notice of each accession to the Members of the League of Nations and to the non-Member States mentioned in Article 8, indicating the date of the deposit of the instrument. |
|
Article 11 A proces-verbal shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations as soon as ratifications or accessions on behalf of ten Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States have been deposited. A certified copy of this proces-verbal shall be sent by the Secretary-General to each Member of the League of Nations and to each non-Member State mentioned in Article 8. |
|
Article 12 The present Protocol shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of the proces-verbal mentioned in Article 11 as regards all Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States on whose behalf ratifications or accessions have been deposited on the date of the proces-verbal.2 As regards any Member of the League or non-Member State on whose behalf a ratification or accession is subsequently deposited, the Protocol shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of the deposit of a ratification or accession on its behalf. |
|
Article 13 As from 1 January 1936, any Member of the League of Nations or any non-Member State in regard to which the present Protocol is then in force, may address to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations a request for the revision of any or all of the provisions of this Protocol. If such a request, after being communicated to the other Members of the League and non-Member States in regard to which the Protocol is then in force, is supported within one year by at least nine of them, the Council of the League of Nations shall decide, after consultation with the Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 8, whether a conference should be specially convoked for that purpose or whether such revision should be considered at the next conference for the codification of international law. The High Contracting Parties agree that, if the present Protocol is revised, the new Agreement may provide that upon its entry into force some or all of the provisions of the present Protocol shall be abrogated in respect of all of the Parties to the present Protocol. |
|
Article 14 The present Protocol may be denounced. Denunciation shall be effected by a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall inform all Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 8. Each denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt by the Secretary-General of the notification but only as regards the Member of the League or non-Member State on whose behalf it has been notified. |
|
Article 15 1. Any High Contracting Party may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that, in accepting the present Protocol, he does not assume any obligations in respect of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of the said territories; and the present Protocol shall not apply to any territories or to the parts of their population named in such declaration. 2. Any High Contracting Party may give notice to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations at any time subsequently that he desires that the Protocol shall apply to all or any of his territories or to the parts of their population which have been made the subject of a declaration under the preceding paragraph, and the Protocol shall apply to all the territories or the parts of their population named in such notice six months after its receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. 3. Any High Contracting Party may, at any time, declare that he desires that the present Protocol shall cease to apply to all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of the said territories, and the Protocol shall cease to apply to the territories or to the parts of their population named in such declaration one year after its receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. 4. Any High Contracting Party may make the reservations provided for in Article 6 in respect of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or mandate, or in respect of certain parts of the population of these territories, at the time of signature, ratification or accession to the Protocol or at the time of making a notification under the second paragraph of this Article. 5. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall communicate to all the Members of the League of Nations and the non-Member States mentioned in Article 8 all declarations and notices received in virtue of this Article. |
|
Article 16 The present Protocol shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations as soon as it has entered into force. |
|
Article 17 The French and English texts of the present Protocol shall both be authoritative. IN FAITH WHEREOF the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol. DONE at The Hague on the twelfth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations and of which certified true copies shall be transmitted by the Secretary-General to all the Members of the League of Nations and all the non-Member States invited to the First Conference for the Codification of International Law. Germany [ Names of plenipotentiaries omitted. ] |